July 6, 2007

Western civilisation, in its best sense, was born with the promenade. Walking is a sensitive, spiritual act. Jogging is management of the body. The jogger says I am in control. It has nothing to do with meditation.

"The Sarkozy jog, say his critics, is a sad imitation of the habits of American presidents, and a capitulation to 'le défi Américain' (a phrase that was the title of a book published here as 'The American Challenge') as bad as the influx of Hollywood movies," writes Boris Johnson, a British member of Parliament and confirmed jogger, in the Telegraph.

"I am not deterred . . . by the accusation that jogging is right-wing," he says. "Of course it is right-wing, in the sense that the facts of life are generally right-wing. The very act of forcing yourself to go for a run, every morning, is a highly conservative business. There is the mental effort needed to overcome your laziness.

"Charles de Gaulle . . . moved with the stately undulation of a giraffe, and never broke into so much as a trot."

Joggers must be libertarians; quicker than those Republican Walkers who think that routine activity is the same as healthy activity, and slower than those Liberal Runners who just like motion for its own sake...

I can remember when "jogging" -- i.e., running -- was considered ridiculous. An adult outdoors, running around, pursuing health, had to feel a little embarrassed about it. The pursuit of health, in fact, was considered too square to confess to.

I think that my father, an avid runner and sometime marathoner, would strongly disagree with that. He's commented more than once on the calming and de-stressing effects of running as well as the time running provides for uninterrupted contemplation.

What better activity is there for obliterating tension? When I still worked in an office, I came home on more than one high pressure day to immediately don running shorts and sprint out of the house. And I don't even particularly enjoy running.

(You can tell I don't run. I don't think it's embarrassing anymore, but the truth is, I've never been able to breathe while running. I've been told it's a type of asthma and that I could solve the problem with drugs, but it's so much easier not to run.)

I know that I could stay thin by eating less. It is much more enjoyable though to stay thin while eating a lot! Running makes this possible.

In addition, my work requires me to be on the phone and when I am at home, my three daughters don't allow much "quiet time". Now that I have an iPod Shuffle, my long Saturday or Sunday run is the only time in the week where I can listen to a whole symphony with no interuptions.

Freeman points out the observable fallacy in the intellectual analysis: Runners often speak of a state very meditative in character.

Some eastern philosophers would nod intently: You can achieve transcendence many ways. Through fasting, as Buddha did, but also through eating. Through celibacy and through sex. Essentially, through non-activity and through activity.

I seem to remember the British press in the '80s seriously chiding the American press for giving so much positive ink to Bush 41's jogging habit--in their view, much too risky a passtime for an elderly leader of the free world.

"It always astonishes me to see anyone over the age of 25 or 30 "jogging," particularly when it's drop-dead hot in the summer. It's like bottled water—both are bizarre affectations of the Me Decade."

George, I can't say that agree with you about bottled water, but there's a good discussion of the subject (and some local governments' efforts to ban it in the name of environmentalism) over at James Lileks' buzz.mn site.

Ah, let us gaze, at the Victoria and Albert Museum, on the revolting apparition in "A Voluptuary under the horrors of Digestion", one of those spot-on cartoons of the dissolute life of the sclerotic Prince of Wales before he became George IV. He didn't improve with age. Then let us enjoy our leaders who care for their health. Mens sana in corpore sano.

Of course, intellectualoids will never concede that anyone to the Right of Center is of sound mind. I understand that there are many “surveys” which they feel “prove” their point, though I must confess that I haven't read them.

Speaking of the mighty right wing, all-American defenders of the world...here's something you won't be hearing from fen, sloan seven, pogo or cedar:

U.S. Aborted Raid on Qaeda Chiefs in Pakistan in ’05 - Published: July 8, 2007

WASHINGTON, July 7 — A secret military operation in early 2005 to capture senior members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal areas was aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and military officials.

The target was a meeting of Qaeda leaders that intelligence officials thought included Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden’s top deputy and the man believed to run the terrorist group’s operations.

But the mission was called off after Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, rejected an 11th-hour appeal by Porter J. Goss, then the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, officials said. Members of a Navy Seals unit in parachute gear had already boarded C-130 cargo planes in Afghanistan when the mission was canceled, said a former senior intelligence official involved in the planning.

A secret military operation in early 2005 to capture senior members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal areas was aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan,

I am not surprised.

Napoleon had a maxim to always leave an avenue open for retreat in case fortune turns against you. The problem with our situation in Afghanistan is that we are totally dependent on going through Pakistan to provide for our troops in Afghanistan. If we lose the support of Pakistan, we have to withdraw our troops from Afganistan. There is no way China/Russia/Iran would let us supply through them. If you take a risk to capture Bin Ladin, and the risk is losing Pakistan (i.e. you cut off your retreat). It's not worth the risk.

Capturing Bin Ladin is way down on the list to maintaining a military presence in Afghanistan.

Those on the left need to be thougtful about grand strategy before they start spouting off BS about "lets send 100,000 guys to find Bin Ladin." It's all just poltiical rhetoric and not reality.